Robert D. Benford

Frame Alignment Processes, Micromobilization, and Movement Participation

This paper attempts to further theoretical and empirical understanding of adherent and constituent mobilization by proposing and analyzing frame alignment as a conceptual bridge linking social psychological and resource mobilization views on movement participation. Extension of Goffinans (1974) frame analytic perspective provides the conceptualltheoretical framework; field research on two religious movements, the peace movement, and several neighborhood movements provide the primary empirical base. Four frame alignment processes are identified and elaborated: frame bridging, frame amplification, frame extension, and frame transformation. The basic underlying premise is that frame alignment, of one variety or another, is a necessary condition for participation, whatever its nature or intensity, and that it is typically an interactional and ongoing accomplishment. The paper concludes with an elaboration of several sets of theoretical and research implications.

Alternative Types of Cross-national Diffusion in the Social Movement Arena

McAdam and Rucht (1993) have recently bemoaned the neglect of diffusion processes in the study of social movements. Clearly there has been work that bears on aspects of diffusion among social movements (Oberschall 1995). But McAdam and Rucht are correct in noting that research and theorization aimed at ferreting out the links among social movements and ‘the dynamics by which they are forged’ (1993: 73) pales in comparison to interest in the emergence of discrete social movements and the factors accounting for constituent participation.

Performing the Nuclear Ceremony: The Arms Race as a Ritual

This article examines the nuclear arms race as ritualized behavior and evaluates characteristics of ritual to comprehend the dynamics of the arms race. Following a review of the literature and statements of those participating in, conducting, examining, and opposing the arms race, the authors find the analogy of the ritual appropriate. They find that rituals (1) provide solutions to problems, especia1ly those involving difficult situations and uncontrollable forces, (2) are rooted in experience, (3) identify evil and mark boundaries, and (4) reify social processes and reinforce social structure. The authors do not criticize the ritual process per se, but develop a critical perspective on the ritualization of the arms race. They conclude by raising questions stemming from an analysis of ritual and by suggesting areas for further research.

Sixties Radicalism and Social Movement Activism: Retreat or Resurgence?

a labor of love that was used to boost their self-esteem in relation to other flyers. Flyers also developed social selves through breeding and maintaining specific bloodlines of pigeons. The men used the appearance and performance of their birds in flight to establish their social self. Of course, any status earned through their birds had to be continually accomplished. Some caretakers felt connected to their neighborhoods through their coops—many treated their coops as little homes. They decorated them and built additions, something Jerolmack claims enabled them to etch their class and moral values onto the coops. As Flyers tended to select particular types of pigeons to breed as a way of defining their individuality, Turkish pigeon caretakers gravitated toward tumblers because of their Turkish bloodline. In this way, the men performed their ethnic identity through their birds. The birds helped fill the strong disconnect with their homeland that they felt in Berlin. One man, Ahmet, said, ‘‘If you grew up with pigeons, if it is in your culture, then it is in your blood’’ (p. 115). While these men could engage in other social activities with other Turkish emigrants, they felt that pigeons provided them with a stronger Turkish social space. Jerolmack described it as a more ‘‘authentic (i.e., traditional) way of embodying their ethnicity’’ (p. 125). Like some of the Flyers, the Turks structured their sense of self and others with their pigeons, and their coops were ‘‘sentimental vestiges of the communities they left behind through emigration’’ (p. 127). It is his closing section on racing that strikes perhaps the biggest chord. Members of the Bronx Club are blue-collar fanciers who were happy to win a pot, but for them the thrill was in their pigeon’s return. It meant they trained well. Racing also meant heated competition with neighbors. Pigeon racing has gone big time, however. It has been rationalized, internationalized, and professionalized. What will this do for the fancier who does it all? Will he disappear just as coops have from the rooftops of New York City buildings, the result of urban sprawl and people moving out of the city? In all, Jerolmack presents a vast amount of material—sociological, theoretical and historical. At times it is overwhelming, and perhaps the extensive theoretical insights consumed space that could have been used for more ethnographic data. Still, it is a great read that will push the disciplinary boundaries.

Gun Crusaders: The NRA’s Culture War

Nancy Abelmann’s book, The Intimate University, reveals stories of Korean American students at the University of IllinoisUrbana/Champaign, where she has been teaching for many years. She indicates that the American public image of Korean and other Asian Americans is that of model minorities whose racial characteristics do not have a negative effect on their academic achievements and socioeconomic mobility. But she shows that Korean American students, the largest ethnic group at the university, are socially segregated, which dogs the liberal promise of the university emphasizing the ideology of multiculturalism. The author points out that at the time she started the book project, a journalist contacted her to complete an article about Korean students’ ‘‘self-segregation’’ for Time magazine. However, in her view, racism and racial stereotypes are the main sources of Korean students’ social segregation at the university. She is not afraid to point out that the university administration is not concerned about Korean students’ social segregation, which contradicts the ideal of a multicultural education. Thus the main objective of the book is to show that Korean students at the University of Illinois cannot leave the their ethnic ‘‘comfort zone’’ due to racism and racial stereotypes. In addition, Ablemann also shows exceptions to stereotypical images of Asian Americans, associated with the model minority thesis, as ‘‘hardworking and successful,’’ and seeking ‘‘instrumental striving and materialism.’’ Through the voices of several students and some of their parents, she makes clear that both Korean students and their parents also stress the importance of a liberal education. As an anthropologist, Abelmann used ethnographic research as the major research technique for this book. She talked to the student informants about ‘‘how they managed their lives and studies in college; how they envisioned life after college; and when it mattered to them . . . how their families figured in their college lives’’ (p. 4). She took the intergenerational approach, analyzing stories of not only students, but also some of their parents. She took the transnational approach by looking at the parent generation’s history and educational aspirations back in Korea. Although she interviewed over fifty students for this book, each chapter focuses on each of several members of the Han extended family and a few other Korean students. By devoting four of the seven chapters to members of the Han family, including two children, their parents, their cousin and uncle, the author has made the book an intergenerational family study. While three chapters (Chapters Four through Six) respectively focus on each of the male members of the Han family, the last chapter introduces narratives of two immigrant women from the Han extended family to capture women’s concerns and gender issues. The author’s intergenerational and transnational approaches and her focus on family, class and gender bordering South Korea and the United States reflect her ongoing research interest in these topics, reflected in her previous publications. Abelmann is partly successful in dispelling stereotypes of Korean and other Asian Americans associated with the model minority image. Several studies have documented that Korean and other Asian immigrant parents emphasize their children’s achievement and success in school and push their children to choose science, law, medicine and business related to high-paying and high-status careers. These studies and journalistic stereotypes tend to give the general image that Asian immigrant parents and to a less extent Asian American students only emphasize the instrumental value of college education, failing to recognize the value of liberal studies. But this book shows that many Korean students and their parents do